Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ford v. Martuscello, 9:14-cv-1566 (DNH/DEP). (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. New York Number: infdco20170921593 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2017
Summary: DECISION and ORDER DAVID N. HURD , District Judge . Pro se plaintiff Raheem Ford brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On July 20, 2017, the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment be granted and that plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendants King, Williams, and Cowan, and all claims against defendants Shanley and Martuscello be dismissed. Plaintiff fil
More

DECISION and ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Raheem Ford brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 20, 2017, the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment be granted and that plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendants King, Williams, and Cowan, and all claims against defendants Shanley and Martuscello be dismissed. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report-Recommendation.

Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which plaintiff objected, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is

ORDERED that

1. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendants King, Williams, and Cowan is DISMISSED;

3. All claims against defendants Shanley and Martuscello are DISMISSED;

4. The following claims remain for trial: (1) excessive use of force and/or failure to intervene under the Eight Amendment asserted against defendants King, Williams, Cowan, Gutwein, and Bellawa; and (2) violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment asserted against defendants Gutwein and LeClaire;

5. Trial in this matter is scheduled for February 5, 2018 in Utica, New York; and

6. Pro bono trial counsel be appointed for plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer